Skip to main content

Full text of "The Tragedy Of Palestine From The Balfour Declaration To Today"

See other formats


tragedy of 



tie Balfear 


KIJ*« Ante t ' M&M.W 

DHAHR.iN : 1 i. S 1 >1 ARA3IA 

yvk * 

■e? \LS 


the Rt. Hon. Anthony Nutting 


This article was originally delivered at the Leon Lowenstein auditorium of 
Congregation Emanu-ElNew York City, as a public address preceding the 
twenty-third Annual Conference of the American Council for Judaism in 
New York City on November i, 1967. The form of an address has been 
retained\ — Ed. 

F ifty years ago today His Britannic Majesty’s Principal Secretary of 
State for Foreign Affairs, the Rt. Hon. Arthur James Balfour, 
issued on behalf of Britain’s wartime government the famous Declara¬ 
tion that was to bear his name: “His Majesty’s Government view with 
favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the 
Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the 
achievement of this object, it being clearly^undersfood that nothing 
shall be done to prejudi ce the civil and religious rights of the existing 
non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. 

Ladies and gentlemen, today, fifty tortured, bitter years afterwards, 
the national home for the Jewish people has become the national state 
of Israel and the civil rights of the Arabs of Palestine lie trampled under 
the heel of an Israeli army of occupation. Now, how has this happened, 
how has this seemingly great humanitarian gesture, the Balfour 
Declaration, turned so sour and left such a trail of bitterness and 
agony in its wake ? And what are we going to do about it ? Mr. Presi¬ 
dent, I hope I may be forgiven if I take a little time this evening to 
review briefly the tragic sequence of events in Palestine which followed 
the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of the British mandate, 
because if we are to understand—still more to resolve—the current 
political crisis arising out of the Arab-Israeli war of last June, it is 
essential that we should recall just how this present impasse was 

First, we cannot forget—for if we forget no Arab will forget—that 
in 1915 Great Britain promised to Sheik Hussein of Mecca that in 
return for the help of his Arab armies in the campaign against Turkey, 
Germany’s ally in World War I, all Palestine plus Iraq, Syria and 
Transjordan and the Arabian Peninsula would be free and independent 
once their Turkish rulers had been defeated. No sooner had this 
pledge been given and the Arab armies mobilised in response, in the 
common allied cause, than Great Britain and Trance got together and, 
in the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, agreed to parcel out 
Syria, Iraq and Transjordan between them as the spoils of war. 
Following upon this, to complete the double-cross, in November 1917, 
exactly 50 years ago today. Great Britain decided to take over Palestine 

as a strategic base from which to defend the Suez Canal under the 
humanitarian umbrella of the Balfour Declaration. 

Ladies and gentlemen, small wonder that the Arabs felt betrayed by 
this cynical breach of the solemn pledges of independence which had 
been given to Sheik Hussein and to the Arab peoples. But still, 
because of a touching faith in their erstwhile allies, they allowed them¬ 
selves to be mollified by a further series of pledges and assurances. The 
national home, they were assured, would not be allowed to become a 
national state and the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish 
communities—which, to say the least, was a quaint, if not a rather 
sinister, description of an overwhelming Arab majority—would be 
safeguarded. Therefore, the Arabs felt that perhaps, after all, the 
denial of the pledges of independence might only be temporary. When 
all was said and done the Arabs of Palestine did then number 92 per 
cent of the population and the Jews, only 8 per cent. And so, armed 
with these assurances, such Arab leaders as the Emir Faisal agreed to 
cooperate in the creation of a refuge for the Jewish people in Palestine 
from the persecutions of Europe. 

A fter all, such cooperation was in full and total harmony with the 
traditional hospitality which the Arabs had extended down the 
centuries to the persecuted Jews of Europe, from the Spanish In¬ 
quisition right through to the pogroms of Czarist Russia. The one 
people, the only people, in the whole so-called civilized world who had 
never persecuted Jews were the Arabs. In Palestine, even as late as 
1948, so close was the relationship between Jew and Arab that each 
and every child born in the same week, whether Jewish or Arab, 
became automatically a foster brother and foster sister of the other. 
Ladies and gentlemen, I defy anybody to find a closer human relation¬ 
ship between two segments of the same race. Even the Grand Mufti of 
Jerusalem himself, who led the Arab rebellion from 1936 to 1939 
against the Zionist agents in Palestine, even the arch-enemy of Jewish 
settlement, Haj Amin al Husseini, had three Jewish foster brothers. 

Thus, provided that the rights of the Arabs were not threatened, in 
all the circumstances and with all the history of Arab-Jewish co- 
! operation, it seemed both natural and right, as the Emir Faisal had 
! agreed with Dr. Chaim Weizmann in 1919, that “all necessary measures 
j shall be taken to encourage Jewish immigration on a large scale and to 
settle Jewish immigrants upon the land”. Alas, poor Faisal and his 
I fellow Arab leaders, both inside and outside Palestine, did not reckon 
with the determination of the Zionist Movement to create, not a home, 
but a state and a state which, in the words of Dr. Weizmann, would be 
“as Jewish as Britain is British”. Nor did Emir Faisal reckon with the 
weakness of successive British governments in the face of this deter- 


mined Zionist pressure; a weakness which allowed the Jewish Agency 
to be established and to become a government within the Mandatory 
government of Palestine, while the Arabs were denied any effective 
say in the administration of their country whatsoever; a weakness 
which permitted the Zionist Agency to buy at knock-down prices land 
owned by Syrian and Lebanese landowners who were cut off from their 
properties by the international frontiers separating British from 
French mandated territories; a weakness that also permitted the Zionist 
Agency to evict thousands of Arab tenant and farm workers to make 
way for Jewish settlers from Europe, compensating these tenants and 
workers at times with as little as ten dollars per family. 

After nearly ten years of this treatment, Britain in 1930 at long last 
appeared to recognize the need to protect the rights of the Arabs by a 
closer control of Jewish immigration and by protection for the Arab 
peasants and tenant farmers. But it only required the threat of Dr. 
Weizmann to resign the presidency of the World Zionist Organization 
to force Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, the British prime minister, to reverse 
his position and to revert to the policy of giving the Zionists a free 
hand in Palestine. Soon after this, the rise of Hitler in Nazi Germany 
created a steep rise in Jewish immigration. The Jewish proportion of 
the population climbed from 8 per cent to 30 per cent. The Arabs 
protested that they were being squeezed out. And again for a brief 
moment the British government recognized their claims and offered a 
legislative assembly, to be elected by proportional representation, 
which would give the Arabs a majority vote—not much after the other 
Arab mandated territories under Britain, Iraq, Transjordan and 
Egypt, had become completely independent. But once again the 
British government was forced to back down in face of protests from 
the Zionists, who feared that a legislative assembly with an Arab 
majority would threaten their plans to create a national Jewish state 
in Palestine. 

T he Arabs, now driven to desperation, decided that armed rebellion 
was the only way to assert their rights. From 1936 to 1939 the 
rebellion continued, led by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Arabs 
lost far more heavily in human lives and treasure than either the Jews or 
the British, but still they carried on the struggle. By 1939 the British 
government was finally driven to accept the fact that the Arabs had a 
case and that something must be done to make amends for the shameful 
way in which they had been betrayed and their rights had been 
ignored. A conference was called in London of all parties to the 
Palestine dispute and when, inevitably, no agreement was reached, the 
British government decided to impose a solution, the famous White 
Paper solution of 1939. Palestine, it was decided, after an interval of 
ten years was to be an independent, bi-national state with Arabs and 


Jews sharing in the government and ensuring the essential interests of 
both communities. Immigration was to continue for five years at a 
predetermined rate of 15,000 a year after which any further immigra¬ 
tion was to be by agreement with the Arabs. And the Arabs were to be 
protected against land purchase and land acquisition by the Zionist 

This was by far the best, the wisest and the fairest solution yet 
contrived and had World War II not broken out a few months later it 
might have resolved the problem. But with Germany at her throat. 
Great Britain was no longer in a position to impose any solution on 
Palestine and by the end of the war Britain was too exhausted to cope 
any longer. The unspeakable atrocities of the gas chambers of Nazi 
Germany and of the occupied territories of Europe had turned the flow 
of Jewish migrants into Palestine into a flood totally beyond the 
capacity of Great Britain to control. In desperation, the British 
government handed its Mandate over Palestine back to the League of 
Nations’ successor, the United Nations, to do their worst. Which is 
precisely what they did, by partitioning Palestine into six areas, three 
for the Jews and three for the Arabs—and incidentally, in a manner 
which gave to the Jewish areas all the best of the land and left the Arabs 
with the wilderness of Judea and the hills of northern Galilee. 

Now from this moment when the United Nations passed their 
partition resolution, in November, 1947, until the departure of the 
British forces from Palestine in May 1943, when the Israeli state was 
formally established, the Zionists, aided by the Stern gang, went to 
work; went to work to persuade the Arabs to leave the areas which 
were to form the Israeli state. To reinforce the argument that such 
Arabs would have no place in Israel, the Stern gang, as some of you 
will remember, selected a few villages such as Deir Yassin to stage a 
massacre of the Arab inhabitants to create a general state of panic and 
hence an exodus of the Arab population. So that by May 1948, when 
Britain formally and finally abandoned her responsibility for Palestine, 
more than 300,000 Arabs had been evicted from their homes and farms 
and had become the first instalment of that hapless, hopeless, homeless 
group of suffering humanity known today as the Palestine refugees. 

Ladies and gentlemen, Zionist propaganda would have us believe 
that the Palestine refugees are the product of the Arab attack on 
Israel in 1948 and that they were ordered to flee from their homes by 
their own Arab leaders, who promised that they would be restored 
when the Arabs had liquidated the state of Israel. The truth is the 
exact opposite. Before the Arabs attacked in May 1948, the Arab 
refugees numbered over 300,000; they had been ordered—nay forced— 
to leave by the Zionists who had neither use nor room for them in the 
areas of Palestine allotted to the Israeli state. Thus it would be truer to 


say that the refugees were the cause of the first Arab-Israeli war rather 
than the result. 

Of course, when the Arabs subsequently lost the war, in 1949, and 
with it lost northern Galilee and much of the territory allotted 
to them under the partition plan, the number of refugees increased 
considerably, doubled in fact, by the exodus from the areas newly 
conquered by the Israeli army. But just as, last June, it did not require 
exhortation from their leaders—indeed last June, if you remember, the 
Arabs left the west bank of Jordan against the exhortation of their 
leaders who told them to stay, and yet 175,000 still left—just like last 
June, it did not require exhortation from their leaders to make them 
leave in 1948 and 1949. The Arabs left because they panicked, as civil 
populations do panic in war, as the army of the conquering hordes 
spreads across their land, as the French and the Belgians and the Dutch 
panicked in 1940; or because they were evicted to make way for 
Israeli settlement of the conquered territories. Suffice it to say that 
when the dust of battle had cleared, the Arabs were worse off than ever 
in terms of territory and nearly 700,000 of their fellows from the 
Israeli occupied areas found themselves thrown on the charity of the 
Arab states and the United Nations for a bare subsistence and denied 
the opportunity to return to lands which they and their ancestors had 
owned and worked for thirteen centuries of human history. 

And as the humiliation at their defeat and at the injustice done to the 
Arabs of Palestine rose in the throats of all the Arab world, they cast 
about for an explanation. How had this come upon them ? Britain, they 
reckoned, had taken Palestine in the first place, in violation of her 
pledges to the Arabs, for imperialist and strategic reasons to establish 
a base from which to exercise a dominant influence in and around the 
Arab world. There was too much truth in this theory for it Jo be 
easily dismissed. World War II, they reckoned, had exhausted Britain’s 
resources and she was no longer able to sustain such a base for herself. 
So, she and her Western allies had introduced this alien. Western 
European state of Israel to do for her and for them what she could no 
longer do for herself: to take over the garrison role which Britain no 
longer had the capacity to sustain; to act as a beachhead for British and 
Western purposes and designs upon the Arab world. These dark 
suspicions were tragically confirmed at Suez in 1956 when Britain and 
France, using Israel as their stalking-horse, invaded Egypt in a 
desperate attempt to seize control of the Suez Canal. 

L adies and gentlemen, so much for the background to this tragic 
conflict between the Arabs and Israel. The rest is too well known for 
me to need to repeat it tonight: the refusal of the Arab states to recog- 


nize the state of Israel and the refusal of Israel to repatriate the Palestine 
refugees; the continuation of the state of war and the denial of passage 
for Israeli ships through the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba and the 
long stalemate broken by the Suez episode in 1956, which we might 
call round two, and punctuated by raids and reprisals across Israel’s 
borders—a long stalemate which lasted until June of this year. 

What we have to do now, and what I ask you to do now with me, is 
to address ourselves to the present day and to examine what, if any¬ 
thing, can be done to bring about a just and honourable settlement. 

Mr. President, to put it bluntly, we have a situation today in which 
Israel, after the third round in the bitter running conflict with the 
Arabs, bestrides not just the U.N. partition frontiers nor just the 
frontiers which she gained by conquest in 1949, but the whole of the 
former state of Palestine, including the old city of Jerusalem, the third 
holy city in the Moslem world, together, for good measure, with the 
Sinai Peninsula. And Israel, it appears, is determined to stay in these 
areas, even to introduce Jewish settlements into them, while, for her 
own part, she still refuses to acknowledge any debt to the Palestine 
refugees who paid the price and are still paying the price for what 
Europe did to the Jewish people—paying the debt which Europe owes 
to the persecuted Jews of the world. Israel has made great play with 
the refusal in the past years of the Arabs to recognize her existence. 
Likewise, she has claimed that the continued state of belligerency on 
the part of the Arabs constitutes a permanent threat to her existence. 
And she has complained bitterly about the refusal of the Arabs to 
allow her freedom of navigation through the Suez Canal and the 
Gulf of Aqaba. The last of these, the Gulf of Aqaba, as you remember, 
was the immediate cause of the outbreak of the war in June of this year. 

But now the Arabs are prepared to concede all these demands, as 
has been evidenced by their endorsement of the Indian and Latin 
American resolutions before the United Nations Security Council. The 
Arabs will recognize more than that. They will respect the territorial 
integrity and political independence of the state of Israel. That is in 
the resolution. The Arabs will terminate the state of belligerency. 
That is in the resolution. And they will guarantee freedom of naviga¬ 
tion through the international waterways in the area. That, too, is in 
the resolution if, in return, Israel will withdraw from the Arab territory 
which she seized last June and will contribute to a just settlement of 
the Arab refugees. 

Mr. President, surely no impartial observer could find fault with 
such terms. Yet it seems that this is not enough for the state of Israel. 
From the latest utterances of Premier Eshkol it seems that, having 
pocketed these far-reaching and fundamental concessions from the 


Arabs which could give Israel all the security and peace that she seeks, 
Israel is not prepared to withdraw, still less to settle Palestine refugees 
in their own homeland, and now demands individual negotiations with 
each individual, separate Arab state, and negotiations under the duress 
of Israeli occupation of that state’s territory. Ladies and gentlemen, 
this is the doctrine of “divide and conquer” and these are conquerors’ 
terms. If Israel persists in these terms, there will be no peace in the 
Middle East. Counsels of moderation such as Abdel Nasser was able 
to impose upon his colleagues in the recent Khartoum summit con¬ 
ference of Arab states will be rejected. The doves will have lost out 
and the hawks will say “we told you so”. And I don’t have to tell you 
who the Arab hawks will be. And the conflict will continue between 
the Arab states and Israel until a fourth or a fifth or a sixth round 
finally plunges the whole Middle East into a holocaust, when one or 
possibly both sides dispose of the nuclear weapon. 

There is a dangerous tendency among many Arabs to equate the 
present situation with that of the Crusades. “It took us”, I’ve heard 
this often said by Arabs, “It took us 200 years to get rid of the 
Crusaders. All right! If Israel will make no terms, if Israel will make no 
amends to the Palestine people, we will wait 200 years and we will get 
rid of them in the end as we got rid of the Crusaders, another alien 
state, another European incursion, another western beachhead upon 
our shores. We will get rid of it”. 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is dangerous talk because Saladin, who 
finally destroyed the Crusader state, fought Richard Coeur-de-Lion 
with swords and lances and not with atomic bombs, and yet this is the 
prospect for the Middle East in the fourth or the fifth or the sixth or 
some round, if nothing is done to bring a just and honourable settle¬ 
ment today. 

M eanwhile the relative calm on the West Bank of today which we 
hear about from the Zionists—how happy the Arabs are to be 
selling postcards to all those nice tourists from Israel—this relative 
calm, ladies and gentlemen, is largely due to the state of shock of the 
inhabitants. And it will give way, all too soon, if nothing is done, to a 
state of guerrilla war in which the Israelis will be driven to use ever 
more brutal methods of suppression, just as the Germans and the 
Japanese and the Italians were forced to escalate their suppression of 
national resistance movements in occupied territories in World 
War II. I was in France in 1940 and I remember exactly the same 
feeling, the same atmosphere amongst the French people as I am told 
now exists on the West Bank of the Jordan. How pleased the French 
were to be out of the war! How thankful they were that the Germans, 
far from being terrible people, behaved so correctly! No women raped, 


no babies were butchered. And yet, ladies and gentlemen, not many 
months afterwards, somebody lost his head and somebody else lost 
his temper and somebody started shooting and the Germans shot back. 
And by 1944, innocent men and women were being taken out and shot 
as hostages because somebody had blown a bridge five miles away. 

I don’t care who the occupying power is. These are the sort of 
bestialities to which occupation gets driven by national resistance 
movements such as will come on the West Bank of the Jordan, and in 
the Gaza Strip, so long as Israel struts and strides in those areas, 
insisting upon conqueror’s terms. And it is surely inconceivable that 
sane men in Israel or anywhere else, however callous they may be to 
the sufferings of humanity, it is surely inconceivable that sane men 
could invite such a prospect upon themselves. It is surely incon¬ 
ceivable that the United Nations could permit such a disaster to be 
perpetrated. Yet if nothing is done, and if nothing is done now; if the 
United Nations fails to endorse the terms and the concessions offered 
by the Arab states for a settlement: recognition, termination of the 
state of belligerency and freedom of passage for Israeli shipping 
through Suez and Aqaba; and if Israel cannot be induced to accept 
and to honour these terms and to do, for her part, what is necessary to 
bring about a settlement—then, ladies and gentlemen, these disasters 
will happen as surely as we are sitting in this hall tonight, however 
much it may cost the Arab world. 

There is an old Arab couplet by an unknown poet which demon¬ 
strates my argument far more eloquently than I could. 

Let none be with us proud or overbearing. 

For we can be more foolish and more daring. 

And however foolish or foolhardy it may seem to some people, the 
Arabs will never abandon the cause of their dispossessed brothers of 
Palestine and will never accept that the land of Palestine shall remain 
as it is today under the occupation of an alien western state. Everything 
else, everything else—Aqaba, Suez, frontiers, Syrian Heights, Gaza 
Strip, even the city of Jerusalem—everything else is comparatively a 
side issue relative to this basic human issue of the people of Palestine. 
This is what this conflict is all about and this is the issue that has to be 

You and I know, ladies and gentlemen, that there is only one nation 
in the world today which can induce the Israelis to settle it, to accept 
the terms now offered by the Arabs, and to redress the wrongs done 
to the people of Palestine. There is only one nation that can do this and 
that is the United States of America. In 1956, when Israel had con¬ 
quered far less territory than today, after the Suez episode, the United 
States told her to withdraw. Britain and France objected; they had to: 


they had gone into the thing with Israel. They said “These people 
are misunderstood, they’ve suffered a terrible injustice, they should 
not be asked to withdraw unconditionally”. But the United States said, 
“Withdraw”! and so the Israelis withdrew. Today no such American 
pressures seem to be available and Israel is able, indeed encouraged, 
by this totally negative attitude in Washington to stand pat upon her 
conquests. And once again to the Arabs the Western world seems to be 
encouraging Israel to expand at the expense of the Arabs. Once again 
the suspicions of the Arabs are confirmed that Israel was created and 
is still being used as a Western outpost to dominate an Eastern race. 

T hrough you therefore, ladies and gentlemen, tonight I would issue 
this appeal on this historic occasion, the fiftieth anniversary of the 
Balfour Declaration. I would issue this appeal through you to the 
government of the United States. In the name of everything that you 
want to see created in the Middle East, stability, security and peace for 
all nations in the area, and in the interests of America’s best relations 
with the Arab and the Moslem world, use your influence on Israel to 
accept an honourable and just peace such as is now within her grasp, 
such as the Arabs have now offered, and to work out through the 
United Nations the means by which such terms can be translated into 

Perhaps I might be permitted to add this further thought as to what 
sort of settlement might emerge for the future and I hope I shall not be 
thought too starry-eyed an idealist in what I have to propose. I think 
I’ve said enough of the dangers and the disasters that are implicit in the 
present stalemate. There is, however, one aspect of the situation, of 
this highly explosive and dangerous situation in the Middle East 
today, which might be turned to the account of a truly imaginative 

I have always felt, and many people who knew Palestine in the old 
days agree with me on this that, quite apart from the human problems 
that are involved, the human suffering of the people of Palestine, one 
of the worst results of creating a Western Zionist state in the Middle 
East was that, in doing so, we destroyed the state of Palestine by 
carving it into two or rather into six different parts. For the state of 
Palestine, notwithstanding all that happened in the 1920’s and the 
1930’s, was by far the most cultured and educated state in the Arab 
world and had been so ever since the days of the Ottoman Empire. 
Now, it just so happens that geographically Palestine has been re¬ 
united—by conquest and occupation, yes—but reunited, nonetheless. 
Is it too much to hope that such counsels of wisdom and imagination 
might prevail even at this late hour amongst Israel’s leaders as would 
enable the state of Palestine to be recreated not just geographically but 


politically as a bi-national, multi-racial state? Is it too much to ask 
that Israel should say openly, and mean it, that a Palestinian Arab has 
the same rights to live and work in Palestine as a Palestinian Jew, and 
to share on equal terms with his Jewish cousins in the running of his 
country, insuring that the essential interests of each community are 
safeguarded and preserved ? 

Now, ladies and gentlemen, before any of you dismiss this idea as the 
ravings of a lunatic internationalist, which perhaps I may be, let me 
ask you what you would have thought in World War II if I had come 
to you and said that the answer to the problem of Europe was for 
France and Germany together to create a European community in 
which they would pool their economic resources and work towards the 
creation of a European political federation. You would have said, 
“He is a raving lunatic internationalist”. And yet, ladies and gentlemen, 
twelve years after the war ended this is precisely what France and 
Germany did, and are doing today. Twelve years after the end of 
World War II! And France and Germany, after all, had a tradition of 
mutual enmity, jealousy and hatred which has never existed, could not 
exist, between Arab and Jew. Is it so impossible to create a bi-national 
state out of what are after all two segments of the same race ? 

Now it may be argued that this would fly in the face of all that 
Zionism stands for. But even before June fifth the Zionist dream of the 
state “as Jewish as Britain was British” had not been fulfilled. Even 
before June fifth Israel had an Arab residue of 300,000, the ones they 
couldn’t evict, the ones who stuck it out, and stayed behind, which was 
about 15 per cent of the total population. And today Israel occupies an 
area with nearly a million-and-a-half Arab inhabitants in it; that is 
almost 40 per cent of the combined population, which scarcely accords 
with the old Zionist concept of a racially pure Jewish state in the 
Middle East. 40 per cent Arab! What would the old Zionists say? 
Thus, whatever final frontiers Israel might, in her present mood of 
intransigent euphoria be ready to settle for, there will always be, as be 
there must, a sizeable Arab complement in that area. 

But the smaller the area, the less physically able the Israelis will be to 
resettle Palestine refugees, and Palestine refugee resettlement lies at 
the heart of any peace settlement with the Arabs. Only the whole of 
Palestine offers enough scope, given the rate of Jewish settlement both 
before and after the creation of Israel, and given the natural increase 
in the numbers of the Palestine refugees. Only the whole of Palestine 
offers enough scope for a solution of the Palestine refugee problem. 

T herefore, I put it to you, if sufficient sanity could be brought to 
bear upon these issues, it seems that here we have a marriage of 

necessity and opportunity. The need to solve the problems of the 


Arabs of Palestine requires the reunification of Palestine and the 
opportunity to recreate a politically unified Palestine could be seized 
from the existing situation where Palestine has already been reunified, 
if only as a geographical entity. Likewise, in the creation of a bi¬ 
national state in Palestine lies the best hope of eradicating the suspicion 
of the Arabs that the sole aim of the West is to create a Western 
beachhead in the Middle East. The benefits which could flow from this 
are almost unbelievable and certainly infinite in number. 

Yet no one could deny that such a bold step as the offer to recreate a 
bi-national state in Palestine would require a great act of faith on the 
part of all concerned. For the Jews to admit so large an Arab minority 
would require as much courage as for the Arabs to accept to live in a 
state with so great a Jewish majority. Clearly too, other problems such 
as the loss of the West Bank to the state of Jordan would also have to 
be resolved by some economic arrangement with the reconstituted state 
of Palestine. And there would probably have to be a cooling-off 
period to allow for tempers to subside, where perhaps the United 
Nations could help by taking the West Bank under some form of 
trusteeship until the final arrangements could be worked out to knit 
together the two parts of Palestine, Jewish and Arab. But if the Jewish 
people are to find any security in the Middle East then they must live 
with the Arabs and let the Arabs live with them. Apartheid, whether it 
is practised in South Africa against the Bantu or in Israel against the 
Arabs is both as repugnant as it is ultimately impractical. 

And however long it takes, and however much it costs, in human 
effort and financial outlay, it is imperative that a start should be made 
now along this road and that means the earliest possible initiative by 
the United States of America with the government of Israel. Mr. 
President, the alternatives in human suffering and material destruction 
which a failure to act now could visit upon Jews and Arabs alike are too 
hideous to contemplate. Today on the fiftieth anniversary of the 
Balfour Declaration, the Middle East is poised as never before upon 
the edge of the most awesome precipice. Yet today the Arab world is 
ready as never before to play its part in settling with Israel on the 
basis of a just and honourable peace. This, therefore, is probably the 
best chance that has ever been offered to the peacemakers to end this 
tragic conflict. But let us be under no illusions: it may well be the last! 

and Trinity• College, Cambridge, he served in World 
War II first in The LereS-Ster Y^omandry afjt^hen- in the 
Foreign Service in France, Spain ancT Italy* Elected 
Conservative M.P. for the Melton Division of Leicester¬ 
shire in 1945, he was Chairman of the Young Con¬ 
servative Movement in 1946, Chairman of the National 
Pinion of Conservative and Unionist Associations 1950 
and of the Conservative National Executive 1951. On 
the formation of Sir Winston Churchill’s Conservative 
Government in 1951 he became Parliamentary Under¬ 
secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Principal British 
Delegate to the Council of Europe. In 1954 he negotiatecj 
the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty regarding the disposal of 
the British base in the Suez Canal zone and in that same 
year became Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and a 
Privy Councillor. In this capacity he headed the United 
Kingdom Delegation to the United Nations General 
Assembly and to the Disarmament Commission and 
was a Vice-President of the U.N. Assembly. In 1956 he 
resigned from the Government in protest against th6 
Anglo-French-lsraeli attack on Egypt. From 1956-59 he 
was a Special Correspondent of the New York Herald 
Tribune and also lectured on Middle Eastern Affairs in 
the United States of America. Author of some seven 
books including “Lawrence of Arabia” (1961), “The 
Arabs” (1964), “Gordon, Martyr and Misfit” (1966) and 
“No End of a Lesson, The Story of Suez” (1967f*1*fe. is 
currently at work on a book describing the scramble for 
Afnca by the colonial powers in the latter half fo L thc 
nineteenth century. Married twice with three children, 
he and his present wife, the forrr%r Anne Gunning 
Parker live a^ jjajgyne Walk, London, S.W.3.